Freeh report
The report by a special investigative group headed by former FBI director Louis Freeh had been commissioned by the Penn State Board of Trustees. After interviewing over 400 people and reviewing over 3.5 million documents, the crux of the report's findings, which were released July 12, 2012, state:
Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, the Special Investigative Counsel finds that it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the University — Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley — repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from authorities, the University's Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large.[95]
The Freeh Report states that although the "avoidance of the consequences of bad publicity" was the main driver in failing to protect child abuse victims and report to authorities, the report outlines other causes as well, among which were: "A striking lack of empathy for child abuse victims by the most senior leaders of the University"; a failure of oversight by the Board of Trustees; a University President "who discouraged discussion and dissent"; "a lack of awareness of child abuse issues"; and "a culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community".[96]
The report outlines how all four men were aware of the 1998 abuse incident in the locker-room shower, and had followed its investigation at the time.[97] Freeh's investigation uncovered a file kept by Schultz in which he wrote notes about Sandusky's 1998 incident. For instance, Schultz wrote: "Is this opening of Pandora's box?" He also wondered, "other children?"[98] Freeh stated that Schultz had "actively sought to conceal those records".[99][100]
The evidentiary weight of Freeh’s report draws heavily upon retrieved emails from 1998 and 2001, which Freeh referred to as “the most important evidence” in the report.[100] The report asserts that these emails demonstrate that in 1998 Paterno knew of the investigation of Sandusky, and followed it closely;[101] and suggest that it was Paterno, "long regarded as the single most powerful official at the university," who persuaded Spanier, Curley, and Schultz not to formally report Sandusky to law enforcement or child welfare authorities. According to The New York Times, the university's handling of the 2001 report of Sandusky raping a young boy is "one of the most damning episodes laid out by Mr. Freeh’s investigation..."[102]
The report states that nobody took any "responsible action after February 2001 other than Curley informing the Second Mile that Mr. Sandusky had showered with a boy"[103] and then telling Sandusky not to bring his “guests” into the Penn State facilities; but the topic of sexual abuse was not broached with Sandusky.[104][105]
The report criticizes Paterno for his failure to “alert the entire football staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the Lasch Building”.[106]
According to details in the report, despite being aware of Sandusky's sexual misconduct with young boys in the locker-room showers in the Lasch Building in 1998, and 2001, Spanier, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz never restricted Sandusky's access to Penn State facilities. The report states that Sandusky had access to the Lasch Building until November 2011. Over the next ten-year period, Sandusky "was frequently at the Lasch Building working out, showing up at campus events that Penn State supported...He was showering with young boys, staying in dormitories...There are more red flags than you could count, over a long period of time."[98] Consequently, out of the 10 young boys that Sandusky would be convicted of sexually assaulting, most of them were abused after he was investigated in 1998[107] — at least five of them were assaulted "at Penn State’s football facilities and other places on campus after May 1998".[108] After his retirement in 1999, the report notes that Sandusky continued to have “unrestricted and unsupervised access to the University's facilities and affiliation with the university's prominent football program. Indeed, the continued access provided Sandusky with the very currency that enabled him to attract his victims".[106][109]
Beyond the question of building access, the report details that as part of Sandusky’s retirement agreement he could "continue to work with young people through Penn State" for more than a decade, including Second Mile events on campus, youth football camps, etc.[110]
Sandusky's access to Lasch was rescinded in November 2011. In the years previous to that, out of the 10 young boys that Sandusky was convicted of sexually assaulting, most of them were abused after he was investigated in 1998 — with the abuse of at least five of them occurring on the Penn State campus.[107][108]
At the July 12 press conference announcing the report's findings, Freeh stated in his prepared remarks: “The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children Sandusky victimized.” He said they “never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky’s victims” until after he was arrested in 2011.[111]
Since the Freeh report is wrong, what makes you think the summation will be any better:
The evidentiary weight of Freeh’s report draws heavily upon retrieved emails from 1998 and 2001, which Freeh referred to as “the most important evidence” in the report.
But Paterno didn't use email. So much for the evidence.
Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, the Special Investigative Counsel finds ...
So they issue a "finding" based on what was "available" not a full or complete investigation. How convenient. Think how cookies would taste if we made them from just what we had available. And yet you eat this stuff up???
"Sandusky's access to Lasch was rescinded in November 2011."
But Sandusky's access to Lasch accompanied by kids was rescinded 10 years earlier after the 2001 incident.
He was told not to bring kids in there anymore by both the Penn State AD and a trustee on the board of his charity -- as Freeh in his report even admits.
And there were no further incidents of molestation by Sandusky on Penn State campus from that day forward.
They conveniently left that part out even though it is in the Freeh Report as well.
The rest of the summation is just as misleading and full of it as the Freeh Report itself.